Both of the readings for this section deal with the philosophy and origin of Interactive artwork. In a way, they both explain that interactive artwork lies somewhere between a defined concept (a piece of physical artwork or instillation in which viewers use their physical bodies to interact with and discover), and simultaneously an ambiguous and open-ended philosophy that can be used to create interactions. That being said, there were a couple of definitions or concepts within this that caught my intention, either because they relate to interactive media work I have done, or made me think about interactive processes in a new way.
- “Interactive artwork, which, by definition, is unfinished and realized only as a function of audience participation.”
- The text also explains Interactive artwork as a “Shift away from meaning.” I interpret this as a shift from the artist creating all meaning to creating the discoverability of meaning. In this the artist becomes not only a creator, but a curator as well.
- As we talked about last semester in Intro to interactive media, the most effective interactive pieces have more than one way to be discovered. Like a ball can be kicked, thrown, rolled, or popped, an interactive piece can be versatile, and the ways to use it should be left up to the user. A good artist will think of this and thus curate the interaction to an extent where they still have control over the general meaning of the piece. Even with this foresight however, the wonderful thing is that people often find ways to interact with it that the artist didn’t imagine.
- Artwork no longer is simply an image but integrates itself into living artwork can “be ways of living.”
- This opens up the ideas of what art is and can be (which I love because in a way I think just about anything manmade can be described as artwork if you qualify it as such– please excuse my dadaism).
- I love this sentiment because it alludes to how our modern world becomes more functionally interactive every day: from crossing lights to airport facial recognition scanners to public artworks. It reminds us that interactivity is not only valuable in certain types of artwork, but also essential to modern life.
- I think that the cool thing about IM is that it may, from the perspective of the artist or one studying interactivity, cause the viewer to “embody the artwork,” but to the viewer a work is just about living life and exploring.
- “not to tell (like theater), but to provoke.” -Bouriaud
- There can be a story in interactive pieces, but usually their main purpose is rather to make viewers “feel.” I think that focusing on the “feel” of a piece in coordination with its purpose is essential to creating something that people will remember.
- “amplify meaning of the body”
- I believe that an interactive artwork can be almost magical in the way that it consumes you, or forces you to think in new ways. Finding new ways in which to use your body is a concept that I wish to explore further, as I am still curious about what it means. I mean I can picture how an interactive exhibit may make you realize that there is a way in which your body can interact with a screen or object in new ways (think computer vision), but I think this can be explored further.